The article examines the key issues associated with the temporary seizure of property within the framework of fundamental principles of criminal proceedings. It explores the relationship between such seizures and procedural requirements, focusing on the inviolability of property rights and the reasonableness of time limits. The procedural nuances of temporary property seizure are discussed, with particular attention to legislative provisions governing the consequences of such actions. The article also addresses the problematic practice of seizing property without a court order, despite legal norms that mandate deprivation or restriction of property rights during criminal proceedings to be based solely on a substantiated court decision in line with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Further, the article explores the challenges related to excessive interference with property rights due to the prolonged retention of seized property by pre-trial investigative bodies. Special attention is given to judicial practices concerning compliance with reasonable time limits after the temporary seizure of computer systems, their components, and mobile communication terminals. Examples are provided where investigative judges have imposed specific deadlines to ensure that pre-trial investigations adhere to reasonable time constraints during extended interference with property rights. The article identifies key procedural and legal strategies available to the defense for preventing or mitigating excessive interference with property rights following temporary seizure as a criminal proceeding measure. These strategies are outlined in Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In instances where the pre-trial investigation body fails to comply with an investigative judge’s order to lift a property seizure and return the property to its owner, the defense may petition the judge to establish procedural time limits for the investigation. It is emphasized that if temporarily seized property is not returned after the seizure is lifted, the court possesses the authority to establish judicial oversight and set procedural deadlines for the pre-trial investigation body to perform all necessary actions for property return, as mandated by the investigative judge’s order.
R. Kychko (2024) studied this question.